Monetizing social networking? More questions than answers…
Is it just me or does the concept of monetizing social networking feel almost counterintuitive? Nevertheless, from a practical standpoint, don’t we have a responsibility to be considering how these sites and applications can be monetized? Does the ROI stem solely from the increased engagement of members over their lifetime and the associated increased value that usually comes with increased engagement? Can these sites and applications be more directly linked to increases in membership or non-dues revenue? Is there a monetizing 2.0 on the horizon that breaks the traditional revenue generating molds of ads, sponsorships, dues, or products (physical or virtual)?
Without creativity in how we monetize these sites and applications, are we going to end up with RSS streams ‘brought to you by’ and advertiser AJAX but no deeper or meaningful way to create or generate ROI? What approaches have you seen that speak to how we can monetize these sites and applications? Are there lessons we can learn from the market penetration of Donor’s Choose and how they’re leveraging new media tools to get their message out and raise money for their cause? Is there a Long Tail model out there that can only be leveraged successfully by 2.0 or social media types? Or, is there something to the old Seth Godin post ‘Doing it for free’ or his more recent Thanksgiving post?
| | Permalink |
Comments
Godin had a very good point. I think that at least when it comes to associations, monetizing Web 2.0 is the wrong thing to focus on. We are in the business of offering services to our members, and putting collaborative web technologies is just another member service that they already pay for.
Do it well, in a way that catches on with the members, and the monetization will flow in the form of dues.
Posted by: Jason Samuels | November 28, 2007 4:29 PM
As part of the executive team of a for-profit white-label social network platform, it is my job to try and discover how to monetize social networking. That doesn't make me an expert but it does mean that I pay alot of attention to the question.
To date, the ad model is king. We actually flipped that script a bit by charging groups a fee to turn ads off. Most social networks do not let you control the ad inventory - we allow our groups to pay us to turn the ads off then place what ever ads they want and charge accordingly. Anyone can do this with a homegrown solution but most of the WEB 2.0 free solutions are only "free" because they are ad supported.
Our users group (which we call Champions) have shared thoughts ranging from reverse revenue models which actually pay members based on participation to requesting that we add the ability to charge for access to group (which we are about to implement).
Others have asked for the ability to take fund-raising donations directly through the social network.
I am happy to share what I learn as we keep our finger on the pulse of this changing landscape.
Posted by: Shaun Callahan | November 29, 2007 8:57 AM